Catholic Scientist writes:
Marriage wasn't defined as being between two people of the same race before Loving v. Virginia. Marriage, currently, is defined as being between a man and a woman.
Could you point out what federal statute provides this definition? DOMA? Has that definition been provided in any other statute?
Do these thousands of laws state that the gender of the parties involved has any effect on the law's enactment? Couldn't the redefinition of marriage effectively change the other laws since they only refer to "marriage", and "spouse"?
For example, the Nevada Marriage License requires information for the bride and the groom. That form would be obsolete and need to be changed/replaced if gay marriage was allowed in Nevada. Now, that isn't a big deal, really, but it is one consequence of allowing gay marriage. With thousands of laws mentioning the word marriage, I think we should make sure everything is going to work out fine before we just "flip the switch" and allow gay marriage.
I think a better way to do it would be to just use civil unions and add them to the laws as needed.
The only place in the license that mentions gender is...
quote:
When you sign this application, you are stating under penalty of perjury that the information you have provided is true and correct, that you are currently an unmarried male and unmarried female, and that there is no legal objection to the marriage.
There is nothing that says the woman cannot put her name in the groom's part of the form.
Adding "civil unions" to the mix for gay couples would require as much effort as just redefining marriage. Any gender specific laws would have to be changed in order to apply to civil unions, just like it would if marriage were redefined.